Apostasy And Loss Of Saving Ordinances

[Tacenda]

I've heard it said that our doctrine reflects more of the Old Testament vs. the New Testament. Which would mean we're going backwards.

[Storm Rider]

I've heard it said that our doctrine reflects more of the Old Testament vs. the New Testament. Which would mean we're going backwards.

Tacenda, it really does not matter what other say about our doctrine. The only one that we each should care about is what does God think of our doctrine? Different things are emphasized at different times because the saints, all of them, are at different degrees in their relationship with God. Our objective is to assist each of God's children to be prepared to see the face of God. Having studied countless religions, doctrines, and beliefs, I know of no single church or religion that more closely reflects the teachings of the Bible than The Church of Jesus Christ. This statement does not indicate the Church is perfect, but that it is closer to getting it right than the others. This does not mean that other churches and other religions do not produce holy individuals; it means that their doctrine is weaker as a whole.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda, it really does not matter what other say about our doctrine. The only one that we each should care about is what does God think of our doctrine? Different things are emphasized at different times because the saints, all of them, are at different degrees in their relationship with God. Our objective is to assist each of God's children to be prepared to see the face of God. Having studied countless religions, doctrines, and beliefs, I know of no single church or religion that more closely reflects the teachings of the Bible than The Church of Jesus Christ. This statement does not indicate the Church is perfect, but that it is closer to getting it right than the others. This does not mean that other churches and other religions do not produce holy individuals; it means that their doctrine is weaker as a whole.

Please tell me how so, and yes I'm pretty bible illiterate. Why are others weak on following doctrine in the bible? In all seriousness, you would be a big help in deciphering this!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm struggling to understand how if the church has been restored, how come there are so many other things added and taken away, that weren't part of the original church. Also, why do we have 12 yr. old deacons? In the bible a deacon needed to be married and a few other things were required. This doesn't seem correct or done with exactness. I always worry that I need to be aware of someone bringing another gospel. Anybody care to convince otherwise without saying it's only known through the spirit. I need a little evidence and please start with the question about the deacon. Oh, I believe I already know the answer, continuing revelations, works everytime.

In the early Church the men who held the Priesthood were adults because it was organized by Christ. Boys did not grow up in it being instructed from early childhood. We live in a different age...even when the Church was restored it was men (grown men) who served. Joseph was given a revelation and vision at 14, but not given the Priesthood until an adult. Samuel was called as a Prophet at 12, Joseph at 14, Mormon at 16. In Paul's day (who did the lion share of this teaching) one had to be 30 to be taken seriously.

[MormonMason]

I've heard it said that our doctrine reflects more of the Old Testament vs. the New Testament. Which would mean we're going backwards.

The Dispensation of the Fullness of Times is supposed to be a welding together of the priesthood keys and priesthood ordinances of the Gospel of all dispensations. Most of those dispensations existed during Old Testament times, so some of that should be expected. It does not mean that we are going backwards, only that all dispensations are included in the restoration of all things.

That has always been the teaching of the Church but so many fail to understand that because they don't actually read their Scriptures for comprehension and fail to heed the Brethren when they encourage the members of the Church to study the magazines of the Church that more often than not contain this information and further clarification. Sections 121 and 128 are the clearest Sections in the Doctrine and Covenants mentioning this restoration of keys and ordinances of all past dispensations, including information that hadn't been revealed in past dispensations.

But, no, it is not going backwards. It is the interconnection and welding together of all past dispensations into one great whole in this final dispensation.

Edited May 23, 2013 by MormonMason

[JarMan]

Yes, apostasy occurs in varying degrees, and in the case of the apostasy of the ancient Church that Christ established, the Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthoods were lost. There are many unique things about the dispensation of the meridian of time that were not seen in previous dispensations, just as there are things in the current dispensation of the fullness of times that are unique. Each dispensation has been unique, building upon the previous dispensation(s). Some may call these aberrations, but it’s just they things were planned and played out.

Wait a minute! The apostasy was part of the plan all along? The Fall of Adam: now THAT was part of the plan. But when else has apostasy EVER been part of God's plan? I'm quite surprised by this assertion. Perhaps I've mis-read your last sentence. . .

The death of Christ and the apostasy are what John 12:24 refers to—without the death of what Christ established in the temporal earth, He cannot fulfill the end of His Atonement and effectuate His victory over all things eternally, which is the purpose of the dispensation of the fullness of times.

This is quite a cryptic verse. But when I read it, especially in conjunction with verse 23, it seems that Christ is prophesying of his resurrection.

So the original Twelve did not fail any more than Christ did; they were no more negligent than Christ was. It is a false charge that the Apostasy resulted from them being derelct in their duties. The loss of the priesthood on the earth is one domino that fell as a by-product of the death of Christ and the Apostles, along with the changing of the doctrine, covenants, ordinances, etc.

You seem to be doubling down on the assertion that the apostasy was part of a larger plan. I understand there is scripture that can be seen as foretelling the apostasy. But do you have any that shows that the apostasy was purposeful?

I can only encourage you to keep trying to understand what is going on; referring to it as an "allegation" and a "story" won't help you!

Sorry to sound flippant or overly-critical. (The last thing I want to do on this forum is sound like one of the counter-mo's or anti's or whatever we're supposed to call them.) But I won't pretend to believe something that for me, currently, seems far-fetched. Maybe my mind will change in the future. (And, btw, thanks for your patience and dialogue.)

[Lightbearer]

Well as far as I am concerned the apostasy occurred and the greatest evidence is that John the Baptist returned to restore the authority to Baptize under the direction of Peter, James and John (the First Presidency of the Meridian dispensation). I do not need to justify it with a Bible proof texts or scholarly opinions of history. Because I know by the power of the Holy Ghost that it occurred. To me it makes a lot of sense, in fact the only Christian religion that does make any sense. To revere dead apostles and prophets and reject modern ones makes no sense at all to me. But all are free to choose whom they will follow. If one would like more historical details about the great apostasy. I suggest reading the book The Great Apostasy by James E Talmadge (it answers many of the questions arisen in this thread.) But the best source is the Lord Himself.

[Tacenda]

Delete

Edited May 24, 2013 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

Lightbearer, I think after reading and listening to those of other faiths, that they believe the prophets were there to spread the word that we are to get a Saviour and also to prepare and present the gospels. After JC came into the world, they believe the bible is all they need now. Thus making it our responsibility to have faith and live on His words and the words of the prophets & apostles in the bible. They believe it's great to have teachers and evangelists, but don't believe that we should have anymore than that, and to beware of anyone that says they speak for God when they already have the "word".

Edited May 24, 2013 by Tacenda

[CV75]

Wait a minute! The apostasy was part of the plan all along? The Fall of Adam: now THAT was part of the plan. But when else has apostasy EVER been part of God's plan? I'm quite surprised by this assertion. Perhaps I've mis-read your last sentence. . .

Yes, death happens, in all its forms.

This is quite a cryptic verse. But when I read it, especially in conjunction with verse 23, it seems that Christ is prophesying of his resurrection.

Yes, in all its forms (not just of His body but of all things He died for / stands for, which were lost -- us, for starters).

You seem to be doubling down on the assertion that the apostasy was part of a larger plan. I understand there is scripture that can be seen as foretelling the apostasy. But do you have any that shows that the apostasy was purposeful?

Yes, the Great Apostasy was a necessary part of Christ descending below all things and submitting to the worst that could be done to Him and with His blessings.

Sorry to sound flippant or overly-critical. (The last thing I want to do on this forum is sound like one of the counter-mo's or anti's or whatever we're supposed to call them.) But I won't pretend to believe something that for me, currently, seems far-fetched. Maybe my mind will change in the future. (And, btw, thanks for your patience and dialogue.)

Of course these things are “far-fetched” (to some; I see them as wonderful and marvelous) -- how else would they be the target of so much opposition?

[Questing Beast]

And how do you address the faith of those in the fastest growing religion on the planet? Is their prophet to be viewed as having been delusional? He claimed the most egregiously metaphysical experiences/visions, they even trump JS's by more than a skosh. Of course, his descriptions were directed to an Arabic audience that expected God to manifest in such odd (to Western sensibilities) ways. Talking, flying asses. Uh, huh. Wait, wasn't there that talking onager in the OT? Oh, yeah. But we don't expect God to do that sort of manifesting anymore, do we? Muslims don't seem to have a huge problem with it, those that take their prophet's words literally that is. So comparing apples and oranges, both fruits after all, how do you keep one and not the other as valid fruit? You can't without being both prejudiced and selective without logic. Religion is to the masses. And masses of people grouped by culture and traditions are not to be collected into foreign religions. Mormonism works for those in the USA and its admirers outside the USA. There will always be billions and billions of people who cannot fathom why anyone would want to be associated as a Mormon. And that's okay. Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists and et al. sectarians the world over are in their small camps believing what they will. But when you point to their "apostate" beliefs you only draw attention to your own brand of religious bigotry. Allow "God" to save each of us as individuals. It is after all the larger concept of intimacy and does not exclude anyone in eternity. Even Mormonism places a limit on God's patience, with the final judgment separating the "elite" Mormons from the rest of humanity, who don't get to live with God at all. It's a nicer kind of "hell" than hellfire and brimstone, but it is still a final failure of all those who don't "pass the angels who stand as sentinels", etc....

Edited May 24, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Ahab]

Seems to me that you need to apply your own words of wisdom. A rose by any other name is still a rose and you either have what is called a rose or you don't. As I said, it's not so much the titles that are important but what the titles represent and allow someone to do by virtue of the keys and authority in the related priesthood offices. If you don't have that, whatever you call it, then you don't have what it takes for the Church to continue.

And what exactly do you show to prove your point to say a Roman Catholic? "Your religion lost the priesthood authority and possesses no 'keys'", etc. How is that convincing? "Pope" or "vicar of Christ" are titles adopted, as you agree, but the "authority" is not shown to have vanished with the change of titles.

The linchpin needed to understand this issue is the same as with most others. You need to have some way to know what the truth is... otherwise you could accept a false idea as the truth. In this case, what you need to know is the truth about who has God's authority and who doesn't. It doesn't make any difference if people who don't have it believe they do have it, as far as the truth goes. In truth, they either have it or they don't.

The Church needs to have people with what we call priesthood keys and authority to get things done correctly, though, and without those things all of the jobs that need to be done do not get done. If you lack certain priesthood keys or priesthood authority you just can't do what you could otherwise do.

Correct me in any false assumptions I make here, but as far as I know the "religious wars" between the Protestants and RCC were originally all about abused, not lost, authority. Nobody said that the RCC had no authority, only that that authority was not exclusive to the RCC. The various Protestant denominations and sects argue over usages, not authority. They are all in the same boat authority-wise. Either they have authority to perform their rites or they do not. The Mormon assertion that "done correctly" is impossible to everyone else is special pleading.

If the Protestants had realized the higher authority of God had been lost they would have also realized there needed to be a restoration and not just a reformation of that authority. They missed and are still missing the big picture.

And there is nothing wrong with being loyal to a particular organization, as long as you are loyal to the correct one, whatever someone may choose to call it. Jesus Christ has a Church and there are people with keys and authority to help him do his work whiel doing it in his name. Without all of that you're either an imposter or just ignorant about the things you don't know.

Fascinating assertions. Anyone can make them, and they all do. Look at how the "Christian church" denies that Mormons are Christians. There is no end to this stupid game, and Mormons have fallen for it from the getgo. "Authority" is individual. Each relationship is one-on-one with God, so authority is also based on that relationship. You are either verified in your path with God or you are called to account. That is called "conscience" and we all have one. (I allow that an insignificant percentage of broken people have no functioning conscience, in a fallen world there are imperfections.) Religious people ought to not be arguing for their loyalties, and allow everyone their own loyalties to manmade organizations, which is all any dogmatically organized religions are. What is the arguing for? To convert people to "our way of thinking". It is validation that the org is the "right one before God". Why there must be a right ONE is the perversity of the never-ending argument....

There either is a right one or there isn't and you can go on believing whatever you want to believe even if what you believe isn't true.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Ahab

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

This is not intended to be a rude or a snide remark, but whose understanding should we lean toward? Brigham Young's? Hugh Nibley's? Pa Pa's? ; ) Or should each of us search the scriptures and ponder and pray about them (and maybe even discuss them with complete strangers on the internet) to learn the truth of things?

I thought I made it clear..."the Scriptures". This not my advice but a direct quote from the scriptures. If you do not believe the scriptures, I am sorry you find this offensive. It also warns about men become laws unto themselves, that has happened at times and we have seen the results of this, my calling as a Priesthood holder to bare witness of the scriptures. So I have never suggested that Pa Pa's understanding (especially not my opinion) to be the correct one. I truly apologize if that was the idea I left you with, this was not my intent, and if I did I apologize to any who got that message, but not for teaching what I believe to be truth. Also I pray that all search the scriptures for themselves. Again I am sorry if you were offended. I have reread the post and do not know what I said that hurt you so deeply or any strangers on the Internet. If you knew me better, you would know it is not in my nature to do so. The scripture I quoted only means that when in question, trust God. The only rude part was putting my name in company with BY or Hugh Nibley's...they deserve better.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I've heard it said that our doctrine reflects more of the Old Testament vs. the New Testament. Which would mean we're going backwards.

Could you explain or expand. God has not changed, the NT Church did away with animal sacrifice because it was not longer needed because it lead up to the sacrifice of the Son of God. The commandments never went away...this is the fullness of times, bringing all things together. But we are not going back to the "Law of Moses", we don't walk only certain distance on the Sabbath...many things were done away with because we no longer needed then as our schoolmaster. All that remains now is what is needed for our spiritual growth and some just administrative.

[Tacenda]

Could you explain or expand. God has not changed, the NT Church did away with animal sacrifice because it was not longer needed because it lead up to the sacrifice of the Son of God. The commandments never went away...this is the fullness of times, bringing all things together. But we are not going back to the "Law of Moses", we don't walk only certain distance on the Sabbath...many things were done away with because we no longer needed then as our schoolmaster. All that remains now is what is needed for our spiritual growth and some just administrative.

Been listening to some EV's again.....my bad.

[Ahab]

Been listening to some EV's again.....my bad.

Yes. Please try to remember there are better sources for true information.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

And how do you address the faith of those in the fastest growing religion on the planet? Is their prophet to be viewed as having been delusional? He claimed the most egregiously metaphysical experiences/visions, they even trump JS's by more than a skosh. Of course, his descriptions were directed to an Arabic audience that expected God to manifest in such odd (to Western sensibilities) ways. Talking, flying asses. Uh, huh. Wait, wasn't there that talking onager in the OT? Oh, yeah. But we don't expect God to do that sort of manifesting anymore, do we? Muslims don't seem to have a huge problem with it, those that take their prophet's words literally that is. So comparing apples and oranges, both fruits after all, how do you keep one and not the other as valid fruit? You can't without being both prejudiced and selective without logic. Religion is to the masses. And masses of people grouped by culture and traditions are not to be collected into foreign religions. Mormonism works for those in the USA and its admirers outside the USA. There will always be billions and billions of people who cannot fathom why anyone would want to be associated as a Mormon. And that's okay. Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists and et al. sectarians the world over are in their small camps believing what they will. But when you point to their "apostate" beliefs you only draw attention to your own brand of religious bigotry. Allow "God" to save each of us as individuals. It is after all the larger concept of intimacy and does not exclude anyone in eternity. Even Mormonism places a limit on God's patience, with the final judgment separating the "elite" Mormons from the rest of humanity, who don't get to live with God at all. It's a nicer kind of "hell" than hellfire and brimstone, but it is still a final failure of all those who don't "pass the angels who stand as sentinels", etc....

"elite" Mormons will not be the only ones in the CK, anyone thinking themselves to be "elite" will lack the humility to be with God the Father. But our own scripture makes it clear that people of all ages who accept the gospel when given them in this life or the next will also be with him in the CK, regardless of their faith while on the earth, or even the lack of faith while on the earth. Now those of us on the earth who know the truth and reject it...woe are we! We are no better than any, more is required of us. "To whom much is given, much is required". I hate the word "elite". I believe that anyone who is good, just so they can become "gods" have missed the mark. If we do not do good because God has done good to me, or because we love Him, we have already failed. Edited May 24, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Been listening to some EV's again.....my bad.

Any good thing from any source is good...from Paul, (and 13th Article of Faith) ..."If there is anything virtuous, lovely or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things" (from memory so forgive any error). Some of the greatest sermons I have heard were from EV Pastors. The greatest I ever "heard"...The Three Gardens (Bruce R McConkie, the greatest read, "Sermon on the Mount", the second greatest read, Mosiah 1-5....the greatest on the atonement 2 Nephi 9-10. Oh how wonderful the word of God! The greatest of advice I can give...read 2 Nephi 9-10...heck anything by Jacob from the BoM, he also gave sermons the Book of Jacob...great stuff. I wish I could sit up long enough to link, because I don't how to do it from IPAD.

[Tacenda]

Any good thing from any source is good...from Paul, (and 13th Article of Faith) ..."If there is anything virtuous, lovely or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things" (from memory so forgive any error). Some of the greatest sermons I have heard were from EV Pastors. The greatest I ever "heard"...The Three Gardens (Bruce R McConkie, the greatest read, "Sermon on the Mount", the second greatest read, Mosiah 1-5....the greatest on the atonement 2 Nephi 9-10. Oh how wonderful the word of God! The greatest of advice I can give...read 2 Nephi 9-10...heck anything by Jacob from the BoM, he also gave sermons the Book of Jacob...great stuff. I wish I could sit up long enough to link, because I don't how to do it from IPAD.

Thanks. I listen to sermons on the radio and usually it's all about the love Jesus has for us. I was thinking that it's all so repetitious and not alot of substance and maybe the LDS way is right because they atleast give us a list of things to do and then I went back to the thought that my relationship with God may just be all I need and the repetitions are okay. I'm torn between the EV and the LDS religious thought. I've never been anything but LDS so it's all new stuff. You have had the best of both worlds. But thanks for the scriptures, I'll check them out.

[JarMan]

I thought I made it clear..."the Scriptures". This not my advice but a direct quote from the scriptures. If you do not believe the scriptures, I am sorry you find this offensive. It also warns about men become laws unto themselves, that has happened at times and we have seen the results of this, my calling as a Priesthood holder to bare witness of the scriptures. So I have never suggested that Pa Pa's understanding (especially not my opinion) to be the correct one. I truly apologize if that was the idea I left you with, this was not my intent, and if I did I apologize to any who got that message, but not for teaching what I believe to be truth. Also I pray that all search the scriptures for themselves. Again I am sorry if you were offended. I have reread the post and do not know what I said that hurt you so deeply or any strangers on the Internet. If you knew me better, you would know it is not in my nature to do so. The scripture I quoted only means that when in question, trust God. The only rude part was putting my name in company with BY or Hugh Nibley's...they deserve better.

Hold on now, cowboy, I'm not offended. No need to apologize. Perhaps you didn't read through the whole thread before posting your reply. Throughout the thread I have been appealing to the scriptures to try and answer my questions. I've asked several times for scriptural references and provided plenty of my own, as well. So when you said to "lean not to our own understanding" it sounded like a mild chastisement for second guessing what church leaders and others have taught. . . as if I would be better off to just trust what others have said about the apostasy instead of trying to research it myself. But if that wasn't your intent then I've misread what you wrote.

I appreciate your testimony of the church and your calling to "bare witness of the scriptures." I do already know the Sunday School answers of pray, have faith, and trust the leaders, etc. I'm hoping to engage others on some of the difficult details, though, because talking through things helps me to learn. Especially when I talk to those who know more than I do (people, in this case, who happen to be strangers on the internet).

[Tacenda]

Hold on now, cowboy, I'm not offended. No need to apologize. Perhaps you didn't read through the whole thread before posting your reply. Throughout the thread I have been appealing to the scriptures to try and answer my questions. I've asked several times for scriptural references and provided plenty of my own, as well. So when you said to "lean not to our own understanding" it sounded like a mild chastisement for second guessing what church leaders and others have taught. . . as if I would be better off to just trust what others have said about the apostasy instead of trying to research it myself. But if that wasn't your intent then I've misread what you wrote.

I appreciate your testimony of the church and your calling to "bare witness of the scriptures." I do already know the Sunday School answers of pray, have faith, and trust the leaders, etc. I'm hoping to engage others on some of the difficult details, though, because talking through things helps me to learn. Especially when I talk to those who know more than I do (people, in this case, who happen to be strangers on the internet).

I'd be glad to listen or discuss. What kind of help do you need? I'm coming from a place of having a trial of faith. This board and the TBM's help so much, and keep me in check. I've yet to fully recover what I had before but do sometimes feel freer to explore a faith that is much richer than ever before in my Saviour. I guess when you almost lose it, you appreciate it so much more. You're welcome to PM and vent all you want.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Hold on now, cowboy, I'm not offended. No need to apologize. Perhaps you didn't read through the whole thread before posting your reply. Throughout the thread I have been appealing to the scriptures to try and answer my questions. I've asked several times for scriptural references and provided plenty of my own, as well. So when you said to "lean not to our own understanding" it sounded like a mild chastisement for second guessing what church leaders and others have taught. . . as if I would be better off to just trust what others have said about the apostasy instead of trying to research it myself. But if that wasn't your intent then I've misread what you wrote.

I appreciate your testimony of the church and your calling to "bare witness of the scriptures." I do already know the Sunday School answers of pray, have faith, and trust the leaders, etc. I'm hoping to engage others on some of the difficult details, though, because talking through things helps me to learn. Especially when I talk to those who know more than I do (people, in this case, who happen to be strangers on the internet).

I don't chastise (or I attempt not too), but sometimes the "Sunday School answer" is the best one. Can we agree that sometimes this is true? But I admit that my human weaknesses are many...legion in fact. Sadly my wisdom (assuming I have any) is lacking. I am bush league compared to most here. My English and writing skills are the worse. , but I am loving and try to be a good soul. So forgive my error and my ability to be understood. When I grow up, there are so many here I hope to be like.

[Questing Beast]

...

There either is a right one or there isn't and you can go on believing whatever you want to believe even if what you believe isn't true.

There isn't a "right ONE" and never has been. "God" does not play favorites with spiritual things. There are too many of us, all too different, and totally alone while physically crammed together, for this kind of assertion to have any merit, imho, of course. You can believe your ONE religion is God's "only true and living church on the face of the whole earth in which I am well pleased". But so do billions of non Mormons believe similarly about their myriad religions. My paradigm says that this planet has over seven billion "religions" on it, one for each soul. Adhering to "the org" is merely man-made tradition....

[Questing Beast]

"elite" Mormons will not be the only ones in the CK, anyone thinking themselves to be "elite" will lack the humility to be with God the Father. But our own scripture makes it clear that people of all ages who accept the gospel when given them in this life or the next will also be with him in the CK, regardless of their faith while on the earth, or even the lack of faith while on the earth. Now those of us on the earth who know the truth and reject it...woe are we! We are no better than any, more is required of us. "To whom much is given, much is required". I hate the word "elite". I believe that anyone who is good, just so they can become "gods" have missed the mark. If we do not do good because God has done good to me, or because we love Him, we have already failed.

Do you personally know anybody who turns away from the truth as they know it? I have never met anyone like that. I know a few who don't know any truth, and live like the rudderless vessel. They aren't in trouble in the afterlife: unless the Mormons, et al. who insist there is only "one way" are right, of course. You believe what I already pointed out: that the LDS faith is just more patient and charitable by extending the "end" beyond any point that we mortals have to concern ourselves personally with. But the doctrine definitely states that only "Mormons" get to the CK: anyone who "joins", i.e. accepts the "saving ordinances" of the temples, becomes a "Mormon". Non Mormons certainly see it that way clearly, when they object, even on their deathbed, "Don't you ever make me into a Mormon after I die!" ...

[MormonMason]

So, Questing, in your view, when Jesus says certain things he was only kidding or making up religion?